Communities

IET Communities provide like-minded people with opportunities to share ideas, collaborate, learn and network. With more than 100 Local and Technical Networks around the world, you can feel confident of finding a community that suits your interests.

Given that Blackpool experienced an earthquake which was moderately large thought to have been the result of fracking, nearby, can we really justify it? Has the operator really carried out maximum credible accident analysis?

Originally posted by: dvaidrGiven that Blackpool experienced an earthquake which was moderately large thought to have been the result of fracking, nearby, can we really justify it?

I think history will answer that one.

Has the operator really carried out maximum credible accident analysis?

No, because in reality they cannot truly know the extent of an accident they could cause, either in severity, likelihood or when.

The big question though - are we only interested in profit?

The thought of lower cost energy and tax and profit. If those prove to far away the eventual damage, because there will be some, then it will be considered a great success and if otherwise then maybe not. I think it will run until something significantly negative happens.

looks to be less disruptive than digging big holes deep in the ground then blowing up the earths crust with explosives! then burning the resulting rubble in open fires in every home, we did that for 150 years and we are still here, I think! although at times when I read the latest scare stories, I do wonder whether this is all a dream.

Assuming the industry is regulated properly and commercial amounts of shale gas (methane) can be extracted form the UK's shale beds (which has not yet been established as far as I am aware), I don't see why the shale gas industry shouldn't be given a chance to prove itself on land where the landowner and local council gives them permission to drill.

1. I suspect that farmers may welcome a few drill pads on their land if they get some sort of income and long term benefit from it; a free connection to the gas grid for bio-methane production from anaerobic digestion of farm waste perhaps (also some drill pads would be useful after gas extraction is finished for site'ing new farm buildings, greenhouses or other farm infrastructure).

So point 1 basically says, synergies that help find farmers new income streams long term will help in making the case for fracking in rural areas. Initially drill pads near farm settlements may be advantageous if noise and disturbance to the farmer and their activities can be minimised. The farmers will get a greater long term synergy dividend that way, and access roads to sites will already be in place, initially minimising environmental impact and costs of drilling.

2. The problem comes over the sheer number of drill pads that will be needed ultimately if fracking is to make a substantial contribution to UK gas supplies (tens of thousands perhaps). They cannot all be drilled in a way synergisticly helps supports additional long term farming income streams.

The shale gas industry has to convince people that the noise and disruption can be minimised, with the majority of the environmental impact being limited to the drill pad and any new access track needed.

What I am basically saying that I don't think central government should force fracking on farmers, land owners and local communities that don't want it. However if local people do not object I don't think national campaigning groups should parachute in to try to disrupt work.

"But the malign effect of the Energy Bill, if enacted and implemented in its present form, will be to lock us into binding long-term contracts for high-cost nuclear and (even more) renewable energy, leaving little or no space for much cheaper shale gas.

This is the energy policy promoted by our Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary. Fortunately, we also have a Conservative energy policy. George Osborne is to be warmly commended for having come out strongly in favour of the fastest practicable development of our shale reserves, and has been unequivocally backed by David Cameron.

This is good news. But it makes no sense for the UK to have two separate and conflicting energy policies at the same time. It is quite clear which we must choose, and which we must junk - the sooner the better."

It looks like the Tories are about to dump the full blame for the crazy and suicidal Energy Bill currently going through parliament on to the Liberal Democrats.

I still remain in the Liberal Democrats just (because the energy bill hasn't passed yet), but I see Ed Davey and Nick Clegg as politically naive for not having seen this turn of events coming....

To make things worse there will soon be a series of votes in the House of Lords to decide between "killing the bill" by demanding what the electricity sector can't deliver without blackouts and souring prices of electricity (Liberal Democrat peers demanding a 2030 decarbonisation target for the electricity sector) and "saving the bill" by demanding what the electricity sector can't deliver without blackouts and souring prices of electricity (senior coalition figures are proposing a compromise involving tougher restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from old coal-fired power stations.)

Instead of playing Russian roulette with one barrel loaded (to decide whether or not the UK commits economic suicide), in the House of Lords they spin the barrel with all barrels loaded.

So as Nigel Lawson implies, if the decision to frack or not to frack, becomes a choice between this nation surviving economically in the medium term or going down the tubes, we don't really have a choice.